R v Hunt - [2009] QCA 397

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hunt [2009] QCA 397

PARTIES:

R
v
HUNT, Keith Stuart
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 88 of 2009
SC No 260 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 December 2009

JUDGES:

Holmes JA, Atkinson and Daubney JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm – where appellant assaulted victims during a fight involving two groups of people – where witnesses’ accounts varied – whether, in relation to manslaughter, Crown unable to exclude defences of accident, self-defence, extraordinary emergency and compulsion – whether, in relation to grievous bodily harm, Crown unable to exclude self-defence – whether verdicts unreasonable

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 25, s 31, s 271(1), s 272(1)

COUNSEL:

P F Richards for the appellant (pro bono)
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

:HOLMES JA The appellant appeals his conviction of one count of manslaughter, of Edward Bullock, and one count of doing grievous bodily harm to Carol Hughes. The Crown case was that he had punched Mr Bullock, causing him to fall to the ground, hitting his head and sustaining fatal injuries, and had struck Ms Hughes, Mr Bullock’s partner, in the face when she tried to defend him. The sole ground of appeal is that the verdicts of the jury were unreasonable. That ground was based on arguments that the Crown could not have excluded accident, self-defence under s 272 of the Criminal Code, extraordinary emergency and compulsion in relation to the killing of Mr Bullock, and could not have excluded self-defence under s 271 in respect of the grievous bodily harm done to Ms Hughes.

The events happened around midnight on 5 April 2007, and arose out of a fight involving two groups of people near the Brook Hotel at Mitchelton. The appellant, a 37 year old man, was in the company of his 11 year old daughter, three men, Peter Newton, Ian McIlveen and Travis Bergvall-Williams, and a woman called “Siggy”. Mr Bullock, who was aged 52, was with Ms Hughes and two acquaintances named Ricky Heath and Steven Connell. There had been some ill feeling between Ms Hughes and Mr Bullock, on the one hand, and the appellant on the other: there was an allegation that the appellant had sexually assaulted Ms Hughes’ daughter.

That evening, Mr Bullock and Ms Hughes had been drinking at the Brook Hotel, leaving there on foot at about 11.30 pm with Connell and Heath. They walked along a roadway which separated the Brook Hotel from the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Hunt

Details

AGLC: R v Hunt [2009] QCA 397
Case: [2009] QCA 397
Decision Date: 22 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hunt involves an appeal by the appellant against his conviction of one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm. The dispute centres around the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to support the verdict, specifically whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which assessed the legal issues raised by the appellant.

The court was required to determine whether the Crown had successfully excluded the defences of accident, self-defence, extraordinary emergency, and compulsion in relation to the manslaughter charge. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Crown had excluded the defence of self-defence in relation to the grievous bodily harm charge. The appellant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable due to the varying accounts of witnesses and the inability of the Crown to exclude the defences.

In assessing the appeal, the court examined the evidence presented at trial and the submissions made by both parties. The court concluded that the Crown had presented sufficient evidence to exclude the defences on reasonable possibilities, thereby supporting the verdicts. The court found that the varying accounts of witnesses did not render the verdicts unreasonable, as it was within the province of the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses and determine the facts of the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions.

The court's final order was to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the appellant's conviction of one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm. The court found that the verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence presented at trial, and that the Crown had successfully excluded the relevant defences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Hunt [2009] QCA 397
PARTIES:	R v HUNT, Keith Stuart (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 88 of 2009 SC No 260 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 December 2009
JUDGES:	Holmes JA, Atkinson and Daubney JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant convicted of one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm – where appellant assaulted victims during a fight involving two groups of people – where witnesses’ accounts varied – whether, in relation to manslaughter, Crown unable to exclude defences of accident, self-defence, extraordinary emergency and compulsion – whether, in relation to grievous bodily harm, Crown unable to exclude self-defence – whether verdicts unreasonable Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 25, s 31, s 271(1), s 272(1)
COUNSEL:	P F Richards for the appellant (pro bono) M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent